NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data

get_henry_hub_cot_positioning

Read-onlyIdempotent

Speculative positioning in Henry Hub natural gas from the weekly CFTC Commitments of Traders report (futures and options combined): managed money net position, its weekly change, its percentile against three years of history, producer net, open interest and its change, plus a plain-English read. Reports lag the market — days_stale says by how much. Full data on both scopes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asof`	No
`data`	No
`note`	No
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`stale`	No
`disclaimer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "asof": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Asof"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Data",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Disclaimer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Note"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Scope",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Stale",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Tool",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "Envelope",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context: the data is weekly, combines futures and options, and lags the market, with `days_stale` quantifying the lag. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and metric list, followed by the critical staleness caveat. Every sentence adds value and nothing repeats the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, this description is nearly complete: source, metric set, combination scope, and staleness are all covered. The only slight ambiguity is the phrase 'both scopes,' which is not expanded, though the output schema likely clarifies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the baseline is 4. The description instead explains the contents of the output, which is appropriate here since there are no parameters to elaborate on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (Henry Hub CFTC COT positioning), a clear source (weekly CFTC Commitment of Traders report), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. This makes it obvious how it differs from sibling tools like forward curves, storage, weather, or production.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is for speculative positioning data from CFTC COT, so an agent can infer when it is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, though the uniqueness of the data makes this a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?